From: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Dbsize backend integration |
Date: | 2005-06-29 06:55:27 |
Message-ID: | 026801c57c77$8dbbba50$0f01a8c0@zaphod |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> pg_relation_size(text) - Get relation size by name/schema.name
>> pg_relation_size(oid) - Get relation size by OID
>> pg_tablespace_size(name) - Get tablespace size by name
>> pg_tablespace_size(oid) - Get tablespace size by OID
>> pg_database_size(name) - Get database size by name
>> pg_database_size(oid) - Get database size by OID
>> pg_table_size(text) - Get table size (including all indexes and
>> toast tables) by name/schema.name
>> pg_table_size(oid) - Get table size (including all indexes and
>> toast tables) by OID
>> pg_size_pretty(int8) - Pretty print (and round) the byte size
>> specified (eg, 123456 = 121KB)
> OK, so you went with relation as heap/index/toast only, and table as the
> total of them. I am not sure that makes sense because we usually equate
> relation with table, and an index isn't a relation, really.
>
> Do we have to use pg_object_size? Is there a better name? Are
> indexes/toasts even objects?
Relation is not an ideal names, but I heard people talk about heap relation
and index relation. Indexes and tables (and sequences) are treated in a
similar way quite often. Think of ALTER TABLE example_index RENAME TO
another_index. This is even less obvious. Of course in relational theory,
an index would not be a relation, because an index is just implementation
detail.
I don't like object_size any better, since that makes me rather think of
large objects or rows as objects (object id...).
Perhaps pg_table_size should be split into pg_table_size and
pg_indexes_size, where pg_indexes_size is the aggregate of all indexes on a
table und pg_table_size is just table+toast+toast-index.
If noone has a better idea for pg_relation_size, I would rather keep it for
consistency with the contrib module, and because it's not too far off.
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dawid Kuroczko | 2005-06-29 07:09:27 | Re: ENUM like data type |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2005-06-29 06:51:20 | Re: Wierd panic with 7.4.7 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-06-29 07:33:40 | Dump comments on large objects in text mode |
Previous Message | laser | 2005-06-29 05:30:14 | Re: Proposed TODO: --encoding option for pg_dump |